But We Shouldn't Rush to Judge ...

There are two stories that disturb me, more for the obvious political angle than the religious one.

As events were unfolding yesterday, all the candidates weighed in on them much as did and are still doing. Remember how we were all asked not to jump to conclusions or politicize or anything? Many expressed sentiments for the families of the victims. You know, thoughts and prayers, things of that nature.

Well that was pretty much what the candidates did too.

And I guess The Daily News found that offensive or something..

The front cover of New York's Daily News for Thursday takes a strong stance against how some politicians are reacting to the San Bernardino shooting with calls for prayer instead of tighter gun control laws.

I guess it's not enough for Republicans to restrain the impulse to make hay out of things while they are happening (note the times on the tweets) and simply wish the victims and their families what comfort can be had at the time. Instead, the media now demands our candidates immediately politicize it, but not just politicize it, they must do so correctly.

As this editorial notes, GOP offers prayers, not solutions.

White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.

But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.

Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.

One imagines that had the GOP hopefuls said something to the effect of "we need border control" or followed in Trump's shoes with "we need a Muslim registry" before we even know anything about anyone, this editorial would have been busy excoriating them for that.

I guess the press only likes what it likes and anything else is incorrect and worthy of mockery these days.

its all because of this:

Did everyone also forget what else was attached to NDAA 2012?
New Bill Legalizes Government Propaganda and Disinformation on American Citizens

The next defense authorization bill to be proposed by the American congress contains a not-so-publicized amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American citizens. The bill would indeed nullify an existing law that (supposedly) protects U.S. audiences from misinformation campaigns conducted by its own government. In other words, Americans could now be subjected to the hardcore, massively manipulative and disinformation-filled propaganda that is usually reserved for foreign countries such as Iraq. Yes, the American public is the new “enemy” to brainwash and the internet will be an important battlefield.

Readers of this site might ask: “Since when Americans were NOT subjected to propaganda?”. That is a true assessment. Most of the articles on this site effectively describe how mass media products are filled with propaganda and disinformation that is communicated to the American public. The new bill would however legalize the process, making it official and out in the open. While propaganda in the United States was always somewhat covert and disguised as something else, the new bill apparently seeks to form an actual Orwellian Ministry of Truth, where propaganda is just part of daily business. If you believe that mass media is full of BS now…there’s apparently a lot more of it coming our way soon.

The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

The amendment — proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed in the House last Friday afternoon — would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

Thornberry said that the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way,” according to Buzzfeed.

Even those who may know these operations are fake and orchestrated cannot communicate it to the public because of this law.
Media is demanding politicizing the events because they are working on orders to force feed us propaganda from the laws passed a coupe years ago.

Well, next year is going to be one hell of a ride. The propaganda machine just grows louder and nastier every day.

a reply to: ketsuko

I guess the press only likes what it likes and anything else is incorrect and worthy of mockery these days.

The press presses the message they are supposed to. One way you can tell is they all report the same thing, another is they all report it for the same length of time. Either its a blip or a deluge, but they all go the same way.

Thats why they call it the main stream. No swimming against that current.

a reply to: ketsuko

Summary:

Media Alert!

Any Americans who do not support the Progressive agenda and don't do or say what we want them to are evil, insensitive, bigots, haters, etc!

Summary complete, Just insert any Progressive topic of discussion.

a reply to: ketsuko

Summary:

Media Alert!

Any Americans who do not support the Progressive agenda and don't do or say what we want them to are evil, insensitive, bigots, haters, etc!

Summary complete, Just insert any Progressive topic of discussion.

a reply to: ketsuko

Bet you by the end of this week Trump says something stupid.

a reply to: crazyewok

Highly possible, but what the media has yet to figure out is that their conduct over everything is a huge part of what is making Trump right now.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Highly possible, but what the media has yet to figure out is that their conduct over everything is a huge part of what is making Trump right now.

But that’s the media for you? Less concerned about truth and more about profit and dumb arse trump statements are good sells. Same with fanning the gun control debate. It stirs up controversy and controversy again sells.

We shouldn't 'rush to judge' ?????????????????

Oh that was simply just too rich.

Check out these.

White House plans executive action to expand background checks for gun sales

White House: Obama Thinks Gun Control Will Deter Terrorists

Senate Dems to force votes on gun control

Left Pounced on Gun Control Before Any Facts of San Bernardino Attack Were Available

Gop critics minds were made up long before the bodies were even cold.

In the Peoples Republic of California that has everything they want to do across the entire country.

And it still didn't do a damn thing.

I am absolutely disgusted at the LEFT at the moment.

So not only do they not like second. they don't like the first amendments.

a reply to: neo96

In the Peoples Republic of California that has everything they want to do across the entire country.

And it still didn't do a damn thing.

Do you know much about California firearm laws? They are not as strict as people have been led to believe. You can still get access to whatever firearms you'd like, California just has a few more hoops to go through.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah I do know them.

And that just more than just a 'few'.

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States. A Firearm Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for gun purchases.[5] Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.[6] This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent over time and is currently the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit on the basis that it is a de facto ban on new handgun models.[7] Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional, based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.[8] California Penal Code §12031 defines what constitutes a loaded wea

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stop making excuses for those gun nazi's.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

In the Peoples Republic of California that has everything they want to do across the entire country.

And it still didn't do a damn thing.

Do you know much about California firearm laws? They are not as strict as people have been led to believe. You can still get access to whatever firearms you'd like, California just has a few more hoops to go through.

Probably have a bigger black market too. Gun laws are worthless to criminals, as are any laws. Loose or tight, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they'll get it.

Gun control is the same thing as nazi burning books.

Trying to take the FREEDOM of choice away from people.

Then trying to 'shame' people into supporting fascism.

a reply to: neo96

Stop making excuses for those gun nazi's.

I'm not making excuses. I was commenting on the false narrative you drive that California is some anti-gun hell hole that strips away 2nd amendment rights.

Yes, they have stricter laws, but as many of the sources you have quoted on this issue admits, many of those laws are very likely to be overturned by higher courts.

Also, the laws in California are not going to sweep across this nation at a federal level and take everyone's rights away. That's just fear-spreading and emotional hyperbole.

a reply to: introvert

False narrative ?

Even bother READING what was linked, and the REST of it ?

Here it is AGAIN.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's the condensed version.

California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms

However, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.[

That's some 'false narrative'.

a reply to: neo96

California doesn't have to have a provision in it's state constitution to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms! That's in the fricken Constitution!

California can try to regulate that right, which many parts are being argued in the courts, but the basic right itself is granted by constitutional authority.

Supreme law of the land....that sort of thing.

Edit:

I saw your edit and I'm glad you posted this:

However, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.[

That's exactly what I said.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: ketsuko

Bet you by the end of this week Trump says something stupid.

I dont have to bet you that Obama and Hillary will say something stupid in a week cause they did within 24 hours of the San Bernadino killings.

Never mind these where terrorist lets posture about gun control and the NRA! News flash! Terrorist will get guns or bombs illegally to join Allah!

a reply to: ketsuko

There is a thread here. www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1095278/pg1

We KNOW the media is pitting right against left. I don't know why anyone takes any of it seriously.

a reply to: introvert

Guess someone missed the whole challenged in federal courts because California GUN LAWS infringe on peoples RIGHTS.

Because it's in the GD US constitution.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Guess someone missed the whole challenged in federal courts because California GUN LAWS infringe on peoples RIGHTS.

Because it's in the GD US constitution.

I already said all that, neo!

The disagreement comes when you try to make the case that the same sort of laws California has will sweep across this nation when the very laws that go too far are already being addressed in Federal Court!

How can they implement these over-reaching laws when they are about to be stricken down by the courts?

That's illogical.